[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5631, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 26, 2006

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
legislation.
  The Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 funds our 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, among many other things. 
It is very similar to the Defense Authorization bill that I supported 
in the Armed Services Committee and on the House floor.
  The bill provides $447.6 billion in funding, including $70 billion in 
emergency funds to support military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
This grand total represents about 55 percent of the entire Federal 
discretionary budget. Overall defense spending has risen 40 percent 
since September 11th and is more than currently being spent by the rest 
of the world combined.
  Appropriating $70 billion for the so-called bridge fund is realistic 
and necessary, because we must support our men and women in uniform, 
but I also believe the Administration must begin to take responsibility 
for the full cost of the war in Iraq and consider these costs through 
the regular appropriations process. There is no ``emergency'' here--we 
know that since this bridge fund would take us only halfway through 
fiscal year 2007, we should be expecting another request before the 
year is over. With total costs for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 
crossing the half trillion dollar point after passage of this bill, the 
American people deserve greater candor from the Administration about 
both the predictable costs as well as the anticipated benefits of our 
undertakings in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Although I don't agree with the ``emergency'' designation, I'm 
pleased that the conferees saw fit to increase the bridge fund levels 
to include $17.1 billion to replace and refurbish Army equipment. This 
is the amount General Schoomaker testified that the Army needed in 
fiscal year 2007 to fully fund its reset program. It's true that even 
with this funding, the Army will still need tens of billions of dollars 
over the coming years for equipment rehabilitation and 
recapitalization--but this is an important start. The bridge fund also 
includes funding for Marine Corps equipment and body armor as well as 
$549 million to cover costs of the enhanced insurance and death 
gratuity benefits.
  I am pleased that the conference report fully funds military pay, 
benefits, and the pay raise of 2.2 percent for the base force. It also 
includes language that I advocated for prohibiting funding for 
permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.
  I remain concerned about rising costs of weapons systems that have 
yet to be fully funded, such as the Future Combat Systems and missile 
defense program, among others. A recent report from the Department of 
Defense identified 36 major weapons systems as having significant cost 
overruns. And yet Congressional Budget Office projections are that 
we'll need to increase defense budgets by 17 percent per year simply to 
sustain the current force structure and weapons programs. And this is 
happening at the same time that operations and maintenance and 
personnel costs--as well as training and recruiting costs--are rising.
  So Mr. Speaker, this conference report is not perfect. It does not 
solve or attempt to solve some of these looming budget problems. But 
overall, it deserves to pass and I urge its approval.

                          ____________________